You are Here: Home >< Maths

# The Proof is Trivial! watch

1. (Original post by Renzhi10122)
Problem 583

and
Prove that is divisible by 4.
A beauty, only invariant question I got off that problem sheet. I was so pleased.
2. (Original post by physicsmaths)
A beauty, only invariant question I got off that problem sheet. I was so pleased.
Lol, I quite like it.
3. (Original post by Renzhi10122)
Problem 583

and
Prove that is divisible by 4.
Solution 583:
Method 1:
Spoiler:
Show
Let with for .
Then , so for some with .
Note also that:
.
Method 2:
Spoiler:
Show
Write .
Note that , so .
Note that if we change the sign of any of the then we change terms of by either .
Regardless of any changes to the terms, we still have .
Now note that if each , then , and so .
4. (Original post by joostan)
Solution 583:
Method 1:
Spoiler:
Show
Let with for .
Then , so for some with .
Note also that:
.
Method 2:
Spoiler:
Show
Write .
Note that , so .
Note that if we change the sign of any of the then we change terms of by either .
Regardless of any changes to the terms, we still have .
Now note that if each , then , and so .
Yup, method 2 was the one I knew, but I quite like method 1.
5. (Original post by joostan)
Solution 583:
Method 1:
Spoiler:
Show
Let with for .
Then , so for some with .
Note also that:
.
Method 2:
Spoiler:
Show
Write .
Note that , so .
Note that if we change the sign of any of the then we change terms of by either .
Regardless of any changes to the terms, we still have .
Now note that if each , then , and so .
Yep, this is from a problem sheet on invariants so yeh changibg the 1s to -1s etc is a nice way but Method 1 is very nice aswell.
6. This problem is for any younger lurkers, as it only requires basic trig, calculus and geometry. I'd post it on the STEP thread, but they have better things to do than do what i spent the better part of a few hour messing around with

Problem 584:

A clean rainbow appears due to an object of sufficient symmetry scattering light from a source. Such light will appear at a certain angle along the line of the observer and the light source due to a focusing effect, such that a complete circle would form (if the ground isn't in the way). Let the order of a rainbow be related to the number of reflections inside such an object.

Let the light source be the sun and the scattering object be perfectly spherical raindrops (refractive index = 4/3). Explain mathematically why the focusing of light occurs at a particular angle for primary rainbows. Why would secondary rainbows look so different to primary rainbows? Find a general solution to angles which rainbows can exist along the line connecting the sun to the observer due to such focusing. Why do primary rainbows not have the expected width of 1.9 degrees, but rather one closer to 2.5 degrees?

Violet light has a refractive index of ~1.344
The sun is sufficiently far away that incident rays are parallel

Rough diagram of what is going on in a primary rainbow for anyone completely lost:
Spoiler:
Show
7. Problem 585**

. Prove that .
8. (Original post by Renzhi10122)
Problem 585**

. Prove that .
failed attempt.
Ew think this is okay? Not ever good at proofs :P
Spoiler:
Show
Note that .

and

Only satisfies both arguments, therefore
9. (Original post by The-Spartan)
Solution 585
Ew think this is okay? Not ever good at proofs :P
Spoiler:
Show
Note that .

and

Only satisfies both arguments, therefore
You seem to have assumed each is the same. . .
10. (Original post by The-Spartan)
Solution 585
Ew think this is okay? Not ever good at proofs :P
Spoiler:
Show
Note that .

and

Only satisfies both arguments, therefore
(Original post by joostan)
You seem to have assumed each is the same. . .
Ah, I was wondering what was happening... Yeah, it's a bit more complicated than that.
11. (Original post by Renzhi10122)
Ah, I was wondering what was happening... Yeah, it's a bit more complicated than that.
Damn
Didnt notice that assumption. Was wondering why it was a ** label
Thanks joostan
12. Problem 583

For anyone as fed up of studying as I am. Evaluate

13. (Original post by 16Characters....)
Problem 583

For anyone as fed up of studying as I am. Evaluate

Why not, note:

.

Differentiating this w.r.t. , also have:

So,

14. Solution 585

Spoiler:
Show

The problem is equivalent to proving that for any n, having the two conditions
x1 + ... + xn = n,
(x1)^32 + ... + (xn)^32 = n,
implies that all of the xi equal 1.

Lemma: given real x1 + x2 = S, then T = (x1)^32 + (x2)^32 has minimum value 2(S/2)^32, achieved iff x1=x2 = S/2.

Proof.
Let x1 = S/2 + d, x2 = S/2 - d. Then T equals 2(S/2)^32 plus a load of even-exponentiated, non-negative terms which are positive (so T > 2(S/2)^32) unless d=0.

If our xi, satisfying x1 + ... + xn = n, are not all equal, we can take any two different ones, say x1 + x2 = S, and replace them by their average (conserving the sum x1 + ... + xn = n), while decreasing the sum (x1)^32 + ... + (xn)^32 at each step. At the end of this process all the xi are equal, and since their sum is n, they all equal 1. Then the sum of their 32-exponents also equals n. So having any xi not equalling 1 would have meant that the sum of the 32-exponents was larger than n, a contradiction.

So the 32-exponent was entirely arbitrary, a bit unsurprisingly. Any even non-zero exponent would've done the job.
15. I've just figured these results out. Not sure how well known they are, so they may be easier than I think:

Show that:

16. (Original post by atsruser)

The first follows from this. A parallel manipulation gives .
17. (Original post by Lord of the Flies)
The first follows from this. A parallel manipulation gives .
Damn, I'm behind the times, aren't I. There I was, thinking I'd found a nice, fancy result, designed to challenge the finest minds of TSR.

It would take me quite a while to follow your derivation - looks very sophisticated. I got to it via a rather simpler route (and easier than those others posted, I think). I'll put it up later.

Oh, and having followed that thread a bit from there - cimer? Verlan?
18. (Original post by atsruser)
It would take me quite a while to follow your derivation - looks very sophisticated. I got to it via a rather simpler route (and easier than those others posted, I think). I'll put it up later.
Cool - and nah it isn't too sophisticated don't worry. It looks that way because I generalised and went into some nice consequences, but the evaluation of the initial series isn't too long [starts at "solution 142" obvz].

Oh, and having followed that thread a bit from there - cimer? Verlan?
Yup! Ah I miss the good old days when this thread was on fire.
19. (Original post by Lord of the Flies)
The first follows from this. A parallel manipulation gives .
This is great!

Though can you explain this step; not sure I quite follow (in particular the second term on the last line):

Furthermore, observe that:

gives

20. (Original post by Lord of the Flies)
Cool - and nah it isn't too sophisticated don't worry. It looks that way because I generalised and went into some nice consequences, but the evaluation of the initial series isn't too long [starts at "solution 142" obvz].
I did this: we have:

and:

(which I think is OK...)

Yup! Ah I miss the good old days when this thread was on fire.
Right. I was wondering if "cimer" was what people did when they got to the top of a mountain or something. Are you bilingual?

As for the good old days, yeah, those days are gone - now you've just got to slum it with second raters like me (and Zacken, of course).

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: February 15, 2018
Today on TSR

### Struggling to get going with your revision?

Get going with the all day revision thread

### Uni strikes! How do they affect you?

Discussions on TSR

• Latest
Poll
Useful resources

### Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

### How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

### Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

## Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
Discussions on TSR

• Latest

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE